"Luck factor" in SnGs?

[dtbog]

Is there any worthwhile way to calculate some sort of quantitative measure of luck in SnGs?

I feel like I've been losing a lot of coinflips, 60/40s, etc... so I started to track them in Notepad while playing. I quickly realized that this data is meaningless -- this measures luck after the chips are in the middle, but what about before the cards are dealt?

This question becomes very theoretical very quickly, as you're forced to decide where "luck" stops. AA losing to KK all-in preflop is unlucky -- no one will dispute that -- but wasn't the shortstack who pushed with KK on the button unlucky because someone was dealt AA on the same hand?

Losing QQ vs. AK is just a "coinflip" (well, 57/43)... but isn't it unlucky that of all the hands to match up against QQ, this player was faced with one of the three that poses any sort of a problem?

I can see how one would simply say that luck can't be measured in this sense... but I'd welcome any ideas.

-DB

[MrMon]

"Luck does not always favor the swift or the strong, but that's the way to bet."

You can keep track of your luck if you want to, but in reality you get as much luck and you lose out to it, in the long run at least. The problem is, in the short term we tend to blame our failures on bad luck and discount its effect on our wins. That's a formula for failure. One or two hands, yeah, you can get unlucky. A couple of days, sure. But if I start losing too much longer than that, I know it's time to look for a new leak in my play. And I always find one. Amazing how that, and not luck, is responsible for my losses.

Example: I have been on a losing streak for two weeks. I adopted a new style of play that worked quite well, but I slipped and got too aggressive, and I have been on a downswing. Last game I played, my TT all-in got beaten by 88 on the river. That's luck. But I know I played well. I'm not mad about it, as I know I won the previous game by pulling a K on the river to bust someone else, and I played well there too. But a few days ago, when my Ace-rag gets busted by AK on an AA8 flop, that's not bad luck, that's bad poker.

General rule: If you find yourself on a losing streak, the fastest way out of it is to simply tighten your play. Bad luck cannot strike a hand not played.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
General rule: If you find yourself on a losing streak, the fastest way out of it is to simply tighten your play. Bad luck cannot strike a hand not played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't have mentioned my reasons for investigating this subject (namely, my own perceived losing streak), because that's not the point. While I know that "bad luck" is often the sign of a leak in your game, I was talking in the theoretical sense.. about how "luck" can be defined.

I guess, though, it's kind of a stupid question. Who cares. I'm just curious.
-DB

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
If you find yourself on a losing streak, the fastest way out of it is to simply tighten your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this is true?

If my KK loses to an underpair twice in a row, should I stop playing KK? I think you get my point. Variance does happen. Some people get themselves on losing streaks because they play too tight, and blind themselves out of a tournament. I don't think this general advice can be applied to the majority of situations.

-DB

[MrMon]

It is the rare SnG player who is too tight. They exist, but are few and far between. I watch the stats, the number is less than 10%. For most people, my advice applies.

As for your KK scenario, of course you play them, that's obvious. But I see far to many people playing Ax, K9, Q8, J7 early, trying to catch something, when it reality it's just a leak.

[Xhiggy]

luck is quantified in the standard deviation, which falls almost certainly between 1.5 - 2. there's many different "types" of luck in a tournament. for example: the cards, the types of players at your table, where the big/short stacks are located, etc.
if there was no luck involved at all, your standard deviation would be 0, and all your results would be the same.
track your SNGs over the long term and you'll see the magnitude of the "luck factor"

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking in the theoretical sense.. about how "luck" can be defined.

I guess, though, it's kind of a stupid question. Who cares. I'm just curious.
-DB

[/ QUOTE ]

Luck: That which allows the skilled to rob the unskilled without having charges filed.

Compare/contrast the following scenarios:

THIEF: "Give me all of your money!"
VICTIM: "Oh my god! Here it is don't hurt me!"
Thief runs away.
VICTIM: "Help, Police!"

vs.

POKER EXPERT: "Give me all of your money."
POKER FISH: "Ok, here you go. Lucky bastard."

Irieguy

[eastbay]

I've thought about this and even wrote a little utility to quantify luck on the river.

For SnGs, I think it's a few things which dominate the luck:

1) Getting caught blind stealing by big hands.
2) Getting big cards in the end game when they pay off more often
3) Getting good distributions of coin flips vs dominated calls in the end game
4) Obviously, luck on the river

eastbay

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have mentioned my reasons for investigating this subject (namely, my own perceived losing streak), because that's not the point. While I know that "bad luck" is often the sign of a leak in your game, I was talking in the theoretical sense.. about how "luck" can be defined.

I guess, though, it's kind of a stupid question. Who cares. I'm just curious.
-DB

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a stupid question, but I have had a similar thought for quite some time. You are looking for luck, while I'm looking for skill. I'm not sure you can separate the two.

Here are the lines of my thinking. We all know that in the long run, we all get the same cards. But what about the short run? Did I win the tourney because I was good, or because I got great cards? Or did my cards suck, but I was able to massage them and bluff my way to the win?

Ideally, if we were able to know everyone's cards, we could do an evaluation of average expected wins/hand based on probability. KTo vs 99 vs 73s etc., etc. Might even factor in the flop if you see it. But short of a televised final table, there is no record of everyone's hands, so this is just an unrealistic stat.

However, we do know each of our own starting hands and could do an EV vs. random hands. That might prove interesting, and would simply be a lookup table based on the number of opponents. Add up the hands for a given tournament, possibly weight later hands more, and get an average per hand. Probably not useful if you go out early, but over 60 or 70 hands, it might prove useful. Or not. But it's something to think about.

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]

However, we do know each of our own starting hands and could do an EV vs. random hands. That might prove interesting, and would simply be a lookup table based on the number of opponents. Add up the hands for a given tournament, possibly weight later hands more, and get an average per hand. Probably not useful if you go out early, but over 60 or 70 hands, it might prove useful. Or not. But it's something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have done something like this, and have found that the cards you get (or don't get) don't seem to matter. It seems to be more the hands you come up against, these may not even be 'better' than yours but they still seem to win (AK vs KQ etc). The only thing it is good for is verifying that when you finish 4th because your last chance steal gets called by AA that you really didn't get any playable cards the whole game. But you already knew that. On the other hand if you have a particularly easy win it's because you got good cards. But there are many examples that go the opposite way.

I probably should do a more scientific study of results vs luckiness of hands.